Citation Nr: 9900926
Decision Date: 01/14/99 Archive Date: 01/22/99
DOCKET NO. 98-03 335A ) DATE
)
)
On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Houston,
Texas
THE ISSUES
1. Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress
disorder (PTSD).
2. Entitlement to service connection for anxiety disorder
with posttraumatic stress symptoms.
REPRESENTATION
Appellant represented by: Texas Veterans Commission
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
J. Murray, Associate Counsel
INTRODUCTION
The appellant had active duty with the United States Army
from November 1967 to June 1969, including service in Vietnam
from April 1968 to June 1969.
This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals
(Board) on appeal from a September 1997 rating decision of
the Houston, Texas, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
Regional Office (RO).
In March 1997 the appellant sought service connection for
PTSD. After a VA psychiatric examination in August 1997, the
appellant was diagnosed with anxiety disorder, not otherwise
specified with posttraumatic stress symptoms.
In September 1997, service connection was denied for anxiety
disorder and for PTSD.
REMAND
The appellant is seeking entitlement to service connection
for a psychiatric disorder, claimed as PTSD. He has alluded
to certain claimed incidents he experienced during his
service in Vietnam in 1967. The appellant claims that while
on guard duty, enemy forces infiltrated his position,
decapitated three soldiers, and blew up four helicopters. He
also claims that on another occasion, while on guard duty, he
saw the remains of some service colleagues who had been blown
up. One of these colleagues was his “best friend.”
The appellant’s claim of service connection for a psychiatric
disorder is well-grounded. He has a current diagnosis of
anxiety disorder which has further been linked by competent
medical evidence to his alleged in-service stressors. Cohen
v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 128, 137 (1997); Caluza v. Brown, 7
Vet. App. 498, 506 (1995), aff’d per curiam, 78 F.3d 604
(Fed.Cir. 1996); Heuer v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 379, 384 (1995).
In this regard, the appellant’s factual accounts are presumed
credible for the limited purpose of ascertaining whether his
claim is well grounded. Meyer v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 425, 429
(1996); King v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 19, 21 (1993).
However, having found that the appellant’s claim is well
grounded does not end the Board’s inquiry. Rather, in this
case, it places upon VA the duty to assist the appellant in
the development of his claim by obtaining relevant records
which could possibly substantiate his claim and by affording
him a comprehensive VA medical examination. Peters v. Brown,
6 Vet. App. 540, 542 (1994); Butts v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 532,
540-41, (1993); White v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 519, 521
(1991). See 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a).
As noted above, the appellant has been diagnosed to have an
“anxiety disorder, not otherwise specified with
posttraumatic stress symptoms.” The appellant’s anxiety
disorder therefore appears to have been linked with PTSD-like
symptoms. However, the clinical identity of his claimed
disorder remains uncertain. A clarifying VA examination will
therefore be afforded the appellant.
The Board notes that the claim was denied in part because of
the lack of credible supporting evidence that any of the
claimed in-service stressors occurred. The Board further
notes that the appellant has not provided a comprehensive
statement of his claimed stressors which must be submitted
for corroboration. After a careful review of all evidence of
record, the Board finds that the appellant should be afforded
an additional opportunity to provide further information
relative to the claimed stressors.
In light of the foregoing, the Board finds that further
development, as specified below, is required. Accordingly,
this matter is REMANDED for the following development:
1. The appellant should be requested to
provide the names, addresses, and
approximate dates of treatment for all VA
and non-VA health care providers who have
treated him for his psychiatric
disability which is not evidenced in the
record. With any necessary
authorizations, the RO should obtain and
associate with the claims folder copies
of all pertinent treatment reports
identified by the appellant which have
not previously been associated with his
claims folder.
2. The RO should request that the
appellant provide a comprehensive written
statement containing as much detail as
possible regarding the stressors to which
he alleges he was exposed to while in
service. The appellant should provide
specific details of the claimed stressful
elements during service, such as all
dates, places, detailed descriptions of
events, and any other identifying
information concerning any other
individuals or witnesses involved in the
events, including their names, ranks,
units of assignment, or any other
identifying detail. In particular, the
appellant is to provide the specific
information requested as to:
a. The incident involving the
alleged decapitation of his three fellow
soldiers by enemy forces who infiltrated
the army compound perimeters;
b. The name of his “best friend”
who allegedly died in the jeep bombing
and the names of the other servicemen who
died with his “best friend;”
3. Following receipt of the appellant’s
statement, the RO should contact the
United States Armed Services Center for
Research of Unit Records (USASCRUR),
77978 Cissna Road, Suite 101,
Springfield, VA, 22150-3197, to obtain
corroboration of his account.
4. The appellant should be then examined
by a VA psychiatrist who has not
previously examined him to determine the
nature, extent, and severity of his
psychiatric disorder. The appellant’s
claims file should be reviewed by the
examiner, who should acknowledge its
receipt and review in any report of
examination generated by this remand.
Specifically, the examiner should opine
as to whether it is at least as likely as
not that the appellant has PTSD related
to his military service; an anxiety
disorder related to his military service;
or any other psychiatric disorder related
to his military service.
5. The RO should review the report of
the psychiatric examination to ensure
that it is adequate. If the report of
the psychiatric examination does not
contain sufficient information, then it
should be returned as inadequate for
rating purposes. 38 C.F.R. § 4.2 (1998).
6. The RO should then readjudicate the
appellant’s claim under a broad
interpretation of the applicable
regulations. If the benefit sought on
appeal remains denied, the appellant and
his representative should be furnished a
Supplemental Statement of the Case,
including any additional laws and
regulations, and given the applicable
time to respond thereto.
The appellant is advised that no action is required of him
until further notice. However, the duty to assist is not a
unilateral obligation on VA, and an appellant wishing
assistance in the development of his claim cannot passively
wait for it in circumstances where he may or should have
information that is essential in obtaining the putative
evidence. Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991),
see Gregory v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 563, 571 (1996); Wamhoff v.
Brown, 8 Vet. App. 517, 522 (1996).
The Board notes in this regard that by statement received in
May 1997, the appellant requested that he be permitted to
consult with a VA psychiatrist in lieu of providing a
statement as to his claimed stressors. However, the
appellant is advised that he must provide the statement as
directed above, and that the information requested above is
vitally necessary to obtain supportive evidence on his
claimed stressors and he must provide as specific information
as he is able. The appellant is further advised that,
without his complete cooperation in this effort, an adequate
search for verifying information cannot be conducted, and his
failure to respond with the specific information as is
requested above may result in the claim being denied.
This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment by the RO.
The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the
Board of Veterans’ Appeals or by the United States Court of
Veterans Appeals for additional development or other
appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner.
See The Veterans’ Benefits Improvements Act of 1994, Pub. L.
No. 103-446, § 302, 108 Stat. 4645, 4658 (1994), 38 U.S.C.A.
§ 5101 (West Supp. 1998) (Historical and Statutory Notes).
In addition, VBA’s ADJUDICATION PROCEDURE MANUAL, M21-1, Part
IV, directs the ROs to provide expeditious handling of all
cases that have been remanded by the Board and the Court.
See M21-1, Part IV, paras. 8.44-8.45 and 38.02-38.03.
Barry F. Bohan
Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals
Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 1991), only a decision of the
Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States
Court of Veterans Appeals. This remand is in the nature of a
preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the
Board on the merits of your appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b)
(1998).
- 2 -